Pooling and escrow is fine with me as long as you can deal with the tax implications.
I have no idea how to implement this feature.
I know that I would have minted a good number of pieces on SR instead of other platforms if there was a way to manage collaborations.
Even if there was an easy way for me to change the wallet address payments were made to I could create a contract on some other service that could perform the splits. As it is now the minting wallet is the only wallet payments can be made to.
Perhaps partnering with a separate service / DAO / company that would manage the pool and splits would work also. Do any exist?
Here is something I am sure the developers are already aware of How to Use OpenZeppelin’s PaymentSplitter | by mbvissers.eth | CodeX | Medium
Shouldn’t we decide to do collaboration splits before we decide how to do it.
It seems like there are a few options right now.
- Don’t make a collaboration split yet.
- Make a collaboration split that would only allow 2 to 5? collaborators.
- Make a collaboration split that has an escrow contract
- make a way to change the wallet address to be paid out on each individual artwork so that the address could be directed at a collaboration (multi-sig) wallet - is this even possible?
- study all possible options before deciding to to it at all
Do we really have to decide implementation before deciding to do it? I think SR is missing out on many sales because there is not a way to manage collaborations. I sort of like the idea of being able to change the wallet payout address on each artwork. Then I could create whatever contract I want to route the funds.
This sort of mechanic might be useful for implanting a way to pay some entity like a gallery for promotion of the art.
I think it’s not a matter of if but when. I’d love to see splits. I think it makes sense to settle on an implementation method. We’ve been doing some research on implementations and will post a recommendation asap.
My personal opinion at this stage would be pull based escrow because its more flexible and allows for more collaborators.
At the town hall today we discussed how this might be implemented. It seems that decision to do splits has been made it is only a matter of how.
The approach outlined would also work retroactively for V2 contracts. It would be a pull model where the erc-20 tokens for payment would go to a smart contract escrow and each member of the split would go collect the funds.
There would be two parts -
-
- One for implementing a smart contract for splits that would be an escrow contract. All parties in the revenue sharing would have access to a contract that would let them pull their percentage of the proceeds from it. In addition GUI UX changes would be made so multiple wallets could be assigned to a mint and buttons to allow the artists, charities and revenue sharing to collect the funds
-
- Two - creation of a way to sign an art piece NFT by multiple artists to mint as multiple people so each artist would be represented on the blockchain. It might be a matter of each artist signing the metadata or a custom contract for the collaboration. More study is needed.
It was suggested closing this SIP and opening two new ones when the technical approach is more solid.
But would it be helpful for community building and DAO practice to have the DAO vote on this SIP which was intended as a signal for beginning to work and think about implementing splits. It might signal to investors in RARE that the governance is maturing and that the members of the DAO have power.
